Search

Due to a past bound by a male servitude to women, chivalry, with women revered as to be placed on a pedestal, with men bound to please women often pathetically deemed as part of their manhood, men are compelled from when boys by a one-way servitude to be “gentlemen.” Honoring the discriminatory, privileged status saved for women is often even called being polite. But disclosing the hypocrisy, isn’t being polite a trait not defined by gender (one’s sex) but by character, with the same qualification in quality of character applying to women too? Are not women supposed to be equal to men rather than above them? Or, are women placed above men despite their character?

Our Anglo culture is a matriarchy, not a patriarchy, evident by the premise of chivalry existing prior to feminism and allowing the extreme effect to take place in the advanced form of feminism. Thus, feminism could only exist by chivalry existing as a prerequisite. Under the advanced chivalry effect of feminism, no possible chance is allowed for men to ever be legitimately heard concerning their equal, non-female-influenced, viewpoint. (That is, if one could ever exist due to the control women have over men.) Men basically do not rate high enough to have a say even concerning their own identity—one sculptured and designed for and by women. This is what first inspired me to write Equality: A Man’s Claim—The Equality Issue from the Male Perspective and an Ethical Society’s Viewpoint.

The first and most devastating blow to our society and a traditional, stable way of life, was the implementation of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action, in effect using feminism to convert our society to a socialistic state. In effect, it took one job (originating from the male’s role as provider of resources via biology prior to a more recent state consisting of paid employment per a conversion of his resources to a government currency means of exchange–money) that prior to EEO/AA matched to provide for one family, then divided the same resources between two people (outside of their unification). This resulted in big business and the government getting two workers for the price of one at the sacrifice of the family. No gain, but a tremendous loss, was effectively wrought upon society by this drastic socialistic change–a condition rooted in biology that has basically existed since creation, and one necessary in other species for their survival. This change disallowed the most efficient assimilation of resources to the people, transforming the benefit to the government and big business. The arrangement, easily sold to the people as equality via chivalry in the scapegoat form of male hatred (blaming men for all our woes), pitting women against men and tapping into female corresponding selfishness/entitlement, best serves government and big business by placing the people of our nation (and those in other countries affected) into a servitude status to others rather than themselves. A self-perpetuating societal condition is established with less family/parental influence—in fact an arrangement dictated by the politically-correct thinking that now demands less parental contact and exposure to quality experiences and family values than in the past. This orchestrated arrangement has now played out to create close to 50 million people in the U.S. now dependent on the government—one that relies on big business to support it compared to receiving money in the past that came from the people when they made the money for themselves to pay the taxes. The government-sponsored, feminist-inspired EEO/AA and forced rearrangement (redistribution of resources) has played out well for our society’s conversion to socialism and, without restraint, will soon become communism, via an elite. People, consistently indoctrinated by propaganda, while living on a day to day basis, are too wrapped up in the course of everyday life to see these effects transpiring—thus the bigger picture from afar–but rather what is fed to them through propaganda via media, politics, and government educational system.

When I first attended school as a university student, I didn’t understand until later why feminism and socialism always occupied the same university niche’ and were promoted in the same departments. But it didn’t take me long to connect the two and realize how they complemented each other in the take-over of society. (My unique perception and insight inspired me to write.) And so far this plan has been very successful, unraveling human civilization like consistent clockwork. Feminism continues to get funded, even concerning the most ridiculous, made-up issues and corresponding laws used to further violate and persecute men and divide our country. But I blame the many narrow-minded fools (educated and media-influenced) who bought off on the misguided ‘equality’ idea who, without filters otherwise gained from equal compassion and ethical standards, allowed it to happen in the first place, selling out our country and its people—thus this is, as the book attests, The Flaw From Within, now available at Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/Flaw-Within-Justice-Violates-Destroys/dp/0976873826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493588367&sr=8-1&keywords=a+flaw+from+within. Also refer to Alan Millard’s website at www.alanleemillard.com

Men in Pink Should make us see Red:
No More Using men via the NFL for anti-male campaign efforts

Alan Millard

The National Football League (NFL) is now being used as a public forum by organizations to spread sex-prejudiced propaganda, with the players themselves wearing pink to support fighting women’s cancer, and TV commercials called No More aired during football games conveying the need to fight violence against women, with no regard, except expressed hatred, for men in either case.

Contrary to the popular propaganda and contempt for men, all major research shows as much and slightly more, and severe, violence perpetrated by women upon men than by men upon women (Arias, Samios, & O’Leary, 1987; Barber, 2008; Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Fiebert*, 2012; Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997; Gelles, 1974, 1994, 1999; Hines, D. A. & Malley-Morrison, 2001; Jurik, 1989; Jurik & Gregware, 1989; Lawrence, 2003; McNeely & Mann, 1990; McNeely, Cook, & Torres, 2001; Morse, 1995; Sommer, 1994; Stets & Henderson, 1991; Straus 2007; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Other sources acknowledge a modern-day difference in male/female character contributing to the problem: The more educated women are the more violent they are toward their male partners (Brinkerhoff and Lupri, 1988). In addition, “During conflict, women are more likely to be demanding; men are more likely to withdraw” (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008, p. 342). With today’s anti-male propaganda administered through the media and education, is it any wonder? Other research reveals that male victims fear calling the police because they will be the ones arrested (George, 1994) which is often the case (Barber, 2008).

The Violence Against Women Act is one of the most pronounced examples of injustice ever wielded by our government, along with the prejudiced and inaccurate propaganda that goes with it pertaining to the issue of domestic violence. Prior to VAWA all crimes of violence were covered by law equally applying to everyone. Any exception applied to a segment of the population is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
* Dr. Martin Fiebert deserves special recognition for his work putting together an annotated biography that examines 286 scholarly investigations, 221 empirical studies, and 65 reviews and/or analyses that demonstrate women are as, or more, physically aggressive than men in their relationships with spouses or male partners. The study’s aggregate sample size is more than 371,600. Refer tohttp://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/…/130508-male-and-female-vi…“http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/…/130508-male-and-female-vi…“-intimate-partner-violence.pdf

Anti-male sentiment adds to the problem, as many man-haters commonly try to excuse women for committing the same acts for which they condemn men. One by the name of Kathy Beebe, director of Sexual Assault Support Services, had the audacity to say in response to research showing more assaults by women than men that “A woman who is abused in other ways may simply be retaliating physically, not necessarily initiating the abuse.” (Dating violence study: More males are victims, by Seva Korogod, June 4, 2006, The Portsmouth Herald) It’s amazing how far we can bend and twist logic when we are consumed by prejudice. Researcher Straus responded that retaliation and self-defense are being equated when legally the two acts are completely different. Could the same “excuse” be used for a man’s physical abuse of a woman? The study conducted by Murray A. Straus (2006), Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations, published in 2007, “surveyed 13,601 students, almost a third of whom admitted to having assaulted their partner. The study revealed that 69 percent of cases featured mutual violence. However, in 21 percent of the cases, the physical abuse came strictly from the female, while only in 10 percent of surveyed situations were males the sole sources of violent behavior.” And thus, as the article also states, chivalry is not dead. Activist Phyllis Schlafly explains the corrupt ramifications and extreme injustices of VAWA at http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html
Millions are spent every year, including a large portion from the Violence Against Women Act, on education and training that “shape the understanding of judges, prosecutors, legislators, and others regarding domestic violence. These perceptions eventually influence legal decisions, government policies, legislative initiatives, and funding priorities” (Education for Injustice, 2010).

A horrible incident occurred when X-factor’s hopeful, Lucie Slater, beat and slashed boyfriend William Aitken’s face. Refer to:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Why-X-Factors-boyfriend-beater… andhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/X-Factor-hopeful-whose-band-we… But why was not the same outrage expressed regarding this incident as was expressed in response to NFL player Ray Rice’s assault of his girlfriend in the elevator? Shortly after the Ray Rice incident occurred a television announcement, with the motto No More, airs several times during commercial breaks of NFL football games, conveying the need to stop men’s domestic violence and sexual violence against women. Opportunists grabbed the chance to use Rice’s case to support their sex-prejudiced efforts, apparently buying time from the NFL (who sells out) to do it. But no alliances were made with national violence organizations on behalf of men in response to William Aitken, with no exclusive women’s sport time or product affiliation used as a medium to convey an anti-violence message to women regarding men in response to Lucie Slater disfiguring his face. Doubtful it (the equivalent) would even be allowed by the network. And much more severe harm was inflicted upon Aitken. The NFL is shamefully being used as a forum for anti-male propaganda and as a means to support discriminatory causes. Another message is being conveyed in a “special” way (double purpose) to support women but at the same time to exclude and demean men.

A “Man’s” World, in Pink?
We need to fight cancer but why discriminate in finding a cure based on which sex receives treatment? (Those deemed slaves have been treated the same.) Now, despite men’s own cancer issues, there is even a thing about men (e.g. football and baseball players) needing to wear pink to support finding a cure for women’s cancer. Even if they do give support to women, why can’t they retain their male dignity in the process? The sad thing is many people, even men, won’t equally support finding a cure for men’s (prostate) cancer, regardless of what they wear! But why is it somehow deemed necessary for men to give up a part of their masculine image to support any cause? A man can support a cause, but that doesn’t mean he should have to denounce his equal worth as a male in the process. The fact this is a requirement for men to give support reveals that those who want the support are indignant and non-appreciative, disrespecting those from whom they want the support. It requires an insult to male supporters for them to give their support in a type of declaration of their lesser worth (including lack of equal acknowledgment for their own cancer) in the process—indeed, self-degradation /emasculation“justification” for their support of a cause that discriminates against them!
One might say requiring men to wear pink would be like requiring women to wear blue to support a cause for men (e.g. a cure for prostate cancer). But no, wearing blue is not demeaning to women and their femininity as it is to men and their masculinity for them to wear pink. However, women are really into their appearance, so a comparable counterpart entity (sacrifice) would be something that equally demeans the female image and femininity necessary for them to contribute their support to finding a cure for male cancer. It would perhaps be like requiring women to not wear any make-up, or perhaps not shave their legs and armpits, or to wear a gunny sack (one or two of these or a combination thereof) to support a cure for prostate cancer. That’s gratitude for you, right, the same as expecting men to wear pink to support a cure for women’s cancer? But under the auspices of “manhood,” being identified by women and telling men that they must be man enough to wear pink, it would involve telling women they must be woman enough to not shave their armpits or wear make-up—a contradiction in terms of personal identity and self-worth for them to give their support only for men.
It isn’t enough that men care but that they demean themselves in the process. Why? Because it’s a way to recruit men via compassion for women and yet turn them against their own self-image, other men, and masculine self-worth. The whole idea associated with applying femininity at the expense of masculinity is generated via a cause for women—chivalry on steroids.

Would men even want to demean women for supporting a male cause—an effort that most men would appreciate—and bite the hand that supports them? Indeed, something is wrong with this whole picture. It is merely another way to take men down in society, but in this case, via compassion for women, exploiting a chivalry component (male self-hatred) to do so. More than likely most men would respect women who equally supported finding a cure for prostate cancer (a minority of women at that) so much that they would want to help boost their dignity as women rather than diminish it. The bigger societal picture reveals that an ulterior motive is self-evident, as feminists through this avenue are now finding an inroad to attack men through male sports which have been targeted by them for several decades. (Title IX is one example.)

Seeing Pink Should Make Us See Red
Why, as has been recently depicted, would an American, all-male sports-team want to demean itself or the sport by wearing pink? We’ve seen the Red Socks, White Socks, but now the “Pink Socks”? I wondered at the time, but truly doubted we would soon see football players wearing pink too? But sure enough, as of 2012, the NFL endorsed this pink campaign, with some football players wearing pink on their uniforms which, as mentioned, is in disregard of their own (men’s) cancer interests as well as in defiance of their masculine identity. NFL players are being used to convey a feminist political message. The next year (2013) brought even more disgrace to the NFL, the male players, and to the American Cancer Society–a joint initiative between the American Cancer Society and the National Football League. This not only serves to feminize the exclusive all-male sport and its players we look up to as masculine male role models, but as mentioned, it also, via the ACS, discriminates against men and fighting prostate cancer, as well as uses and degrades men to do it.

Prostate cancer is equally as prevalent and lethal as breast cancer. Only if this campaign were to be non-sexist and an effort to fight for both sexes’ cancer, without degrading supporters to do it, would it have merit. But men, being mere pawns for women per chivalry/feminist standards (and a pathetic masculinity defined by the pawn existence, well conveyed by the NFL players), are too controlled and conditioned to give themselves equal self-worth, exempting their own mutual interests and forfeiting male image/self-worth in a cause to support women. A mockery is being made out of the game and its players. Refer to http://sports.yahoo.com/…/nfl-raises-breast-cancer-awaren…/…
Why does it become necessary for men to degrade themselves to support women and in association with a national organization, the American Cancer Society, that now excludes men in their cancer-fighting campaign? (A discriminatory organization as this deserves no one’s support but only condemnation.)

The typical misguided, irrational feminist response that men aren’t secure enough with their masculinity to wear pink makes no sense. (Why is that even considered relevant to the effort to begin with?) As is typical of the feminist/chivalry mindset, this is a contradictory statement. Part of being secure with one’s masculinity is being masculine, and this security is derived from liking the way we look, dress, and making sure that we feel good about ourselves by what we wear—our personal image through what complements our sexuality. Otherwise, are women who don’t feel comfortable wearing certain clothing, perhaps making them look fat or less feminine, therefore not secure with their femininity? This is complete nonsense.

The exaggerated chivalry effect becomes self-evident when men are more dedicated to fighting women’s cancer than to fighting their own cancer, even sacrificing their self-worth/image in the process to do it. But is this still defined by some as being “polite” or a “man”? How can the sacrifice of manliness make someone a man? It is more accurately defined as pussy-whipped but at an extreme level never before reached in our society applying to the feminist attack upon male self-worth. (Feminists have had issues with football for decades because it continues to be a completely masculine, all-male sport and one of the last bastions of exclusive maleness.) Typical of feminism is to exploit an effort for women and use it as an opportunity, via men as their pawns, to diminish men. This campaign, and how it is packaged to be degrading as well as discriminatory, is not worthy of anyone’s support. We must all equally oppose violence against everyone and support finding a cure for both prostate and breast cancer and not do so under the pretense of something else that requires us to demean ourselves and others in the process.

A long-time equality advocate, Alan Millard heads the group Men and Fathers for Justice and is the author of Equality: A Man’s Claim and Land, People, Politics, and Ignorance.

If something changes in the realm of our societal existence, there is always a trade-off in the balance of the whole. For example, if women get the same pay as men and as many jobs as men, the role men traditionally held, and ironically are still expected uphold by many women, can no longer exist, nor can the traditional role provided by women continue to coexist. The same expectations of the past are still placed on men to enact their part without the resources available to do it (back it up), taken by women. And this is in addition to the void also caused by women no longer fulfilling their traditional role later as housewives and mothers.

In other words, the resources attached to the male’s social position of initiator and provider have been taken away by women, yet the burden of providing financial resources and initiating relationships in the social scene has not been acquired (reciprocated) by women to compensate at the sociological level. And this tradeoff concept still doesn’t take into account sex differences and personal self-worth (socio-biological aspects) associated within the traditional roles that previously existed, nor does it account for the best/traditional arrangement for the family and raising children. Ironically, the new so-called “equal” result fails to provide any gain, but instead results in a two workers-for-the price-of-one deal for employers, big business, and the government wherein two people are now working for the equivalent income only one person needed to support a family in the past. Contrary to the traditional arrangement that supported a family, the situation now requires twice the amount of time (two people, both the man and woman) at work with twice the time taken away from one’s life and properly raising children, thus sacrificing the very reason for working. Go figure.

We as a society have been duped—manipulated and convinced of a totally foreign concept that has taken part in destroying us. We as a people have lost, not gained anything. However, there must be some point to this forced restructuring. Has this served as an effective means to convert our society to Communism? Are having both men and women working and at lower equivalent wages compared to the past perhaps a way to make us “equal” to third world countries and a way to exploit us in the same way other third world countries have been exploited? Due to selfish greed, we as a country and society have been sold a false bill of goods.

Believing that having women in combat will be emotionally hard on the men due to them wanting to protect women from harm’s way reveals that these type of men are not emotionally prepared for the job and therefore should be removed from combat positions. These types of men are why we have “chivalrous” discriminatory laws as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and mothers granted child custody over fathers. Real adult men would feel an equal desire to defend other men as much as women. The best way to determine who is to be in combat is to continue to have established standards that determine if one qualifies for fighting in combat. If this ends up being men, so be it. The qualification standards are what matter and should be used to make that determination.